In cryptography broken means "known attack significantly faster that brute-force", which was published in 2005. And cryptographers were advocating for deprecati

In cryptography broken means "known attack significantly faster that brute-force", which was published in 2005. And cryptographers were advocating for deprecating it several years before that, because the security margin was clearly insufficient. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.h... The time between a theoretical attack and practical demonstration of an attack should be considered a grace period we can use to migrate to a secure primitive. Choosing SHA-1 for an application which relies on collision resistance after the 2005 papers is plain incompetence. Git chose SHA-1 because Linus did not consider collisions a problem. The downsides of SHA-256 were pretty small even then (32 instead of 20 bytes, and somewhat slower performance which is still faster than most IO).