This is not a feasible attack. There is a large difference between how academics use "broken" and what the practical consequences are.

As Schneier writes as an introduction in the very paragraph you are trying to quote, "in academic cryptography, the rules are relaxed considerably." This is not a snub on academia; colloquial terms sometimes just mean something different than the academic definition.

That is "a" definition and that definition doesn't apply to the way the other commenter used broken.

That is the definition for hash functions. The other commenter was, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong. From Schneier's Self-Study Course in Block-Cipher Cryptanalysis:

"Breaking a cipher simply means finding a weakness in the cipher that can be exploited with a complexity less than brute-force."

But please go on about how you know more than Schneier.

You're disregarding the context of those words.

Schneier is illustrating the gap between the academic and practical meanings of "broken".

The term you're looking for is "compromised."