Cryptographers rely on precise definitions to make their assessments. In particular, a primitive makes a number of useful promises. Any achievement that descri

Cryptographers rely on precise definitions to make their assessments. In particular, a primitive makes a number of useful promises. Any achievement that describes a way in which a promise is not kept makes that primitive broken, regardless of whether that achievement is theoretical or practical. (They often talk about “theoretically broken” or “practically broken” to distinguish whether it was actually done.) > it's not like SHA-1 is broken for every single possible usage True, but it is extremely easy to believe your usage is unbroken and be wrong. Besides, often, primitives that are broken for one usage eventually break for others. > why the nonsense with "no good reason"? Obviously performance is one significant consideration for the unbroken use cases There are many much more robust primitives with better performance nowadays, such as BLAKE2, SHA-512/256, or Kangaroo12.