There is a great clourflare article [1] that has talked about this before when they first suggested LV certs.<p>&gt; The seemingly good news is that globally, SHA-2 is supported by at least 98.31% of browsers. Cutting 1.69% off the encrypted Internet may not seem like a lot, but it represents over 37 million people.<p>There is also an interesting discussion in Security Now #538 [2] there is also a transcript of the show [3]. Skip to page 2 of 39 just where Leo says &quot;Yeah&quot;. Android 2.2 and Windows XP SP 2 are on the list of things that don&#x27;t support SHA-2. These devices exist particularly in the developing world. It sends the wrong message, to the developing world in particular, if we don&#x27;t support HTTPS for them. It encourages websites in areas where it isn&#x27;t 1.69% of their users but maybe 5% of their users to just not enforce TLS. TLS with a SHA-1 signed LV cert is better than no security at all.<p>Facebook&#x27;s also has a cool server add-on to dynamically serve LV certs to those who need them is very promising. If it is in-production at Facebook it is bound to be good.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.cloudflare.com&#x2F;sha-1-deprecation-no-browser-left-behind&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.cloudflare.com&#x2F;sha-1-deprecation-no-browser-lef...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.grc.com&#x2F;securitynow.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.grc.com&#x2F;securitynow.htm</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.grc.com&#x2F;sn&#x2F;sn-538.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.grc.com&#x2F;sn&#x2F;sn-538.pdf</a>