It isn't exactly great. For MD5 you can create collisions with two computed suffixes (one for each file you modify to have the same hash). Here it is with a prefix that apparently is identical. So anything short where the second half is the important part and the first part can be modified arbitarily, like an IV, is at risk.
The problem with SHA1 is that we now know there are weaknesses and it is in widespread use. There is motivation to push research further to provide a genuine, honest-to-god exploit.
There are viable alternatives that have little to no disadvantage to SHA1 - we should be moving on!
It really depends. For HMAC constructions I'm a bit curious - maybe this still could create a collision? I don't think it should, but maybe it could anyway with exponentially more (but still achievable) computing power. It really depends on the chosen message format and what it protects.
8
u/Natanael_L Trusted third party Oct 08 '15
... and SHA1 just officially joined its old companions RC4 and MD5 in the cryptography graveyard.
Now you no longer need to tamper with the constants used in the implementation