On: NIST is announcing that SHA-1 should be phased out...

[GTP]

That was the name of the standard, for which they had to pick a "Secure Hash Algorithm". And it's normal to have to update standards over time, regardless of the name. Which name would you have suggested for a standard defining a secure hash function? Usually it's better to not use fantasy names for standards, and "A Hash Function That Is Secure Now But Maybe Not Anymore In 10 Years" it's a bit too verbose in my opinion.

[lapetitejort → GTP]

The same concept applies to telescopes. Every year a "Ridiculously Huge Telescope" gets announced. If I named them I'd start small: "Decently Sized Telescope"; "Mildly Safe Hashing Algorithm".

[Dylan16807 → lapetitejort]

Huge Telescope 1. Huge Telescope 2. Huge Telescope 3.

If we do the same thing as the hash names, I think it's fine. "SHA-1", specifically with the "1", doesn't cause problems.

[itsTyrion → GTP]

Exactly. Look at video codecs. H.264 is named AVC - Advanced Video Codec. now we have VP9, HEVC(H.265), AV1 and VVC(H.266) being better.

Or AAC - Advanced Audio Codec. Fast forward a few years, Opus came out and you can reduce the bitrate by another 30-50% with similar performance

[dolni → GTP]

Change "Secure" for "FIPS" and you have a decent name. FHA-1 -- FIPS hash algorithm, version 1.

[GTP → dolni]

Yes, this could have worked. But unfortunately it's too late now: changing the name of the standard now would create confusion as well.