This sentence has too many subordinate clauses.  What is worse, many are introduced to clarify terms introduced by the sentence.  This is bad style as it will confuse the reader.

For example, the sentence introduces the term "non-read", which it then must define.  Why introduce a term that is used once when, to understand the term, it must be defined?  Also, the definition of "non-read" is also poor as it claims to be inclusive ("i.e.,") but is actually incomplete ("etc.").  Is changing the permissions of a file a 'non-read' operation?

Another example is changing "an FTP door" to "an FTP door of any type (plain, gss or gsi)".  This is not an improvement as the original is accurate and concise where as the replacement is unnecessarily verbose, uses vague language ("type" must then be clarified in a list).  The list is also wrong since it confuses "gss" and "kerberos" (we don't have a gssftp but we do have a kerberosftp door).

Suggest using two sentences: one to define the function of the property, the second to describe how the choice of property value maps to this functionality.